Basu: Judicial interviews insult to women

This is just the latest example of women being subjected to inappropriate treatment

Aug. 30, 2013

Written by

The stunningly sexist and most likely illegal question to a judicial candidate by a member of the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s just the latest case of a woman in Iowa’s workforce being treated inappropriately while agents of government with the power to do something about it take a pass.

In her interview to be a judge on the Iowa Court of Appeals, Assistant Iowa Attorney General Jeanie Vaudt was asked by Commissioner Scott Bailey if she and her husband have a “covenant” marriage and whether living apart from him amounts to her breaking those vows. That followed Vaudt telling the commission that though her husband, David, the former state auditor, has taken a job in Connecticut, she would make whatever adjustments and sacrifices were necessary if appointed to the bench.

It’s unlikely anyone would have presumed to ask a male judge candidate that, partly because it’s still assumed — despite growing evidence of a reversal — that wives should follow their husbands wherever their jobs take them and put their own careers in the back seat. The subtext of Bailey’s question was that a woman pursuing professional advancement is responsible for putting her marital vows in jeopardy — an insult to all couples who support one another’s careers.

To ask it also seems to violate the constitutional separation of church and state. Covenant marriage is a Christian concept promoted by such evangelical organizations as the Iowa Family Policy Center and the Promise Keepers.

Intrusive personal questioning goes against the commission’s guidelines and handbook. It’s also illegal to ask most job candidates if they are married or might get pregnant, what religion they are, how old they are or if they are gay. But Bailey’s question wasn’t challenged by anyone on the Judicial Nominating Commission, which makes recommendations to the governor. Nor has it been challenged by Gov. Terry Branstad, who this year appointed Bailey, a leader of the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators, to the commission. The appointment came amid criticism of Branstad stacking the commission with Republican donors.

Branstad isn’t alone in failing to sanction supervisors who treat female employees improperly. There’s apparently little incentive to do so in Iowa since there is little consequence for those who don’t.

The state official responsible for training Iowa law enforcement officers on domestic violence and sexual abuse himself made sexually inappropriate remarks in class to female trainees.

But even after the Iowa Crime Victim Assistance Division removed Michael Quinn from administering the office’s Violence Against Women Act grant, he got to keep his $91,000-a-year state job. It was Nancy Brady, the instructor who blew the whistle on him, who got fired — even though she has him on tape threatening to slit her throat.

The academy’s director, Arlen Ciechanowski, another Branstad appointee, defended his decision to keep Quinn on as assistant director because of his administrative “talents” and fiscal responsibility — making it clear his own priorities do not include ensuring a safe working environment for women.

Floyd County officials were no better when a paralegal named Theresa Farmer complained repeatedly over two years that then County Attorney Jesse Marzen touched her, made sexual comments and posted inappropriate messages on his walls.

They looked the other way until the Iowa Supreme Court suspended Marzen’s law license over a sexual relationship he had with a client before being elected to the county attorney’s job. Only then was he removed from it. But a jury, after hearing the evidence, awarded Farmer $81,519 for her pain and suffering.

And then there’s the former Fort Dodge dental assistant who was fired from her job after 10 years of impeccable service because her boss found Melissa Nelson too sexually irresistible. The Iowa Supreme Court, compromised by having no woman on it, ruled twice that that was not illegal sex discrimination.

If we expect women to be treated equally in the workplace in government and business, then we need to hold accountable those in authority who don’t, as well as those higher ups who let them get away with it. Workplace standards are set at the top. As the state’s top official, Gov. Branstad has an obligation to repudiate Bailey’s questions of Jeanie Vaudt. Otherwise, if he doesn’t ultimately name her to the Court of Appeals, we will be left to wonder whether the private terms of her marriage had something to do with it.

As we celebrate the Labor Day weekend, every branch of government and all employers must commit themselves through strong policies and consequences to making this state safe and welcoming for working women.